Loser Liberalism

Political discussions
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 48438
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Loser Liberalism

Post by kalm »

Nancy Pelosi, Thom Friedman, and establishment Dems... :ohno:

After the protests die down and the blisters heal from all that marching, the center-left suburbanites will return to supporting moderate Republicans like Hillary and continue to lose... :nod:
The fury that is currently welling up against our demagogue president is a gorgeous thing. The women’s march on Washington bowled me over by its sheer numbers. The town hall meetings calling Republican representatives to account are delicious payback for decades of phony populism. The combination of the two is one of the healthiest political developments I have seen in many years.

But opportunism never sleeps, and with the rage and the resistance of recent weeks some far less noble characters have seen a chance to develop a new con. They’re up on the resistance bandwagon right now, rending their garments, shaking their fists, and praying that no one holds them responsible for the dead end into which they’ve steered us over the years. Inveighing loudly against Trump has become, for the people I am describing, a means of rescuing an ideology that has proven a disaster.

Comparing this moment with the Tea Party tells us a lot about this misdirection. In its 2009 heyday, the Tea Party represented a kind of superficial secession from the Republican party, which had discredited itself with the series of disasters we call the George W Bush presidency. Throw the old leaders out, the Tea Party seemed to demand, and start fresh

But that’s not really what happened then, and it’s probably not going to happen with the hack politicians, million-dollar consultants and smug journalists who led Democrats to utter powerlessness this time around.

Yes, the Tea Party brought down many Republicans, but in truth it was a way of rebranding the same old Republican party without the stink of George W Bush attached. Conservative activists back then looked out over an economic disaster brought on by libertarian idealism – by a generation that worshiped bank deregulation – and insisted that what we needed was more deregulation, that we needed to go full-on free market. That’s the achievement of the Tea Party.

There is a possibility that the resistance to Trump will turn out the same way – that it will become a vehicle for our Enron Democrats to avoid accountability. “I don’t think people want a new direction,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in December. Now is not the moment for infighting, others have insisted, but for unity and togetherness. Unity behind the existing leadership, that is. Changing the personnel in the C-Suites will only weaken us, they will say; hell, we can’t even afford to see our leaders criticized.....

The last lesson to take from modern conservatism is the most important: the Tea Party succeeded by pretending to be a hard-times protest movement. It deliberately echoed the language of the old left. It raged against bank bailouts and crony capitalists. It dreamed about vast, crippling strikes. It pretended to stand up for workers. Paul Ryan denounced big business. Glenn Beck modeled himself after Thirties enfant terrible Orson Welles. Trump himself constantly mourns deindustrialization and idle factories.

Another way of saying this is that the Tea Party movement was an imitation of the old, workerist left. If you want an explanation for how the manufacturing states of the Midwest went Republican last November, look no further. The insight here is that liberals don’t need to mimic the Tea Party in order to head off this powerful impulse; they merely need to be what they used to be – what they are supposed to be.
I doubt that many of our leading Democrats will be able even to do that, however. For decades now, Democrats and Blair-style “Third Way” leaders have praised one another for leaving all that workerist stuff behind, for embracing globalization and the knowledge economy and the enlightened professional class and affluent Republican voters in the suburbs. This has been going on for so long that the problem today is not only that they don’t want to recapture that part of their identity but that they don’t even know it exists.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... e-movement
Image
Image
Image
Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 25506
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Republic of Western Sussex

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by Ivytalk »

"Enron Democrats!" :lol: Hell, we need the Birkenstock Democrats!

Frank can turn a clever phrase, I'll give him that.

Bring on the worker strikes and the old Wobbly songs. Then Trumpism will be ousted, and true progressivism will prevail. Sounds like the lamentation of a disappointed Sanders supporter. Funny he doesn't talk about the public financing of elections.

One article I read says that, within 20 years, 100% of federal tax revenues will be used to support Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Obamacare entitlements. Zilch for the military, education, infrastructure, or anything else. In the meantime, long live the duopoly. :coffee:

Nero and Tom Frank fiddle while Rome burns.
“Sure. I was wrong.” — 89Hen 7/27/2020
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 8511
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by Baldy »

Ivytalk wrote:"Enron Democrats!" :lol: Hell, we need the Birkenstock Democrats!

Frank can turn a clever phrase, I'll give him that.

Bring on the worker strikes and the old Wobbly songs. Then Trumpism will be ousted, and true progressivism will prevail. Sounds like the lamentation of a disappointed Sanders supporter. Funny he doesn't talk about the public financing of elections.

One article I read says that, within 20 years, 100% of federal tax revenues will be used to support Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Obamacare entitlements. Zilch for the military, education, infrastructure, or anything else. In the meantime, long live the duopoly. :coffee:

Nero and Tom Frank fiddle while Rome burns.
Damn you...you...you supply-siders. :lol:

Conks. :ohno:
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19272
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by Chizzang »

Ivytalk wrote:"Enron Democrats!" :lol: Hell, we need the Birkenstock Democrats!

Frank can turn a clever phrase, I'll give him that.

Bring on the worker strikes and the old Wobbly songs. Then Trumpism will be ousted, and true progressivism will prevail. Sounds like the lamentation of a disappointed Sanders supporter. Funny he doesn't talk about the public financing of elections.

One article I read says that, within 20 years, 100% of federal tax revenues will be used to support Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Obamacare entitlements. Zilch for the military, education, infrastructure, or anything else. In the meantime, long live the duopoly. :coffee:

Nero and Tom Frank fiddle while Rome burns.
What's sad is we could use that money to bomb Canada...

:nod:
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 37354
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by CAA Flagship »

Chizzang wrote:
Ivytalk wrote:"Enron Democrats!" :lol: Hell, we need the Birkenstock Democrats!

Frank can turn a clever phrase, I'll give him that.

Bring on the worker strikes and the old Wobbly songs. Then Trumpism will be ousted, and true progressivism will prevail. Sounds like the lamentation of a disappointed Sanders supporter. Funny he doesn't talk about the public financing of elections.

One article I read says that, within 20 years, 100% of federal tax revenues will be used to support Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Obamacare entitlements. Zilch for the military, education, infrastructure, or anything else. In the meantime, long live the duopoly. :coffee:

Nero and Tom Frank fiddle while Rome burns.
What's sad is we could use that money to bomb Canada...

:nod:
:lol: :lol:
No need to waste our money doing that. Global warming is inflicting on them a slow death, and ending their hockey domination.
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14958
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by GannonFan »

Good parts at the end of that piece too...
It was exactly the same dream that powered the Hillary campaign: all the respected people are together, and that’s what matters. All the foreign policy gurus, all the Silicon Valley CEOs, all the Wall Street guys, all the highly regarded policy wonks. Rs and Ds alike, holding hands and singing from the same hymnal.

A popular front it ain’t. This is the same Washington dream of a great consensus of the well-graduated that has animated every stage of loser liberalism’s decline. What is stupid about it is that it unconsciously fulfills Donald Trump’s vision of a rigged establishment game. But what truly is awful about it is that it wants to crush the very real possibility that the Democratic party might become relevant again.
And to me, that's the problem with today's Progressivism - what does it even stand for? I know what Progressives wanted at the turn of the 20th century, their goals were concrete and visible. What is today's version? Raising minimum wage to $15 or more? That's illusionary and the market will correct as it's always done. Single payer healthcare? Okay, that's something if that's what they really believe. Renewable energy for energy independence? Darn fracking has given us energy independence today and decades earlier than renewables would've. Lower student loan interest rates or free public college? Who pays for that and how does that stop runaway college costs, especially considering that the exploding availability of student loans at low interest rates is the single greatest factor in similar tuition increases in the first place? If those are the ideas, then that's why Progressivism isn't winning the hearts and minds at the ballot box.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23950
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by CID1990 »

GannonFan wrote:Good parts at the end of that piece too...
It was exactly the same dream that powered the Hillary campaign: all the respected people are together, and that’s what matters. All the foreign policy gurus, all the Silicon Valley CEOs, all the Wall Street guys, all the highly regarded policy wonks. Rs and Ds alike, holding hands and singing from the same hymnal.

A popular front it ain’t. This is the same Washington dream of a great consensus of the well-graduated that has animated every stage of loser liberalism’s decline. What is stupid about it is that it unconsciously fulfills Donald Trump’s vision of a rigged establishment game. But what truly is awful about it is that it wants to crush the very real possibility that the Democratic party might become relevant again.
And to me, that's the problem with today's Progressivism - what does it even stand for? I know what Progressives wanted at the turn of the 20th century, their goals were concrete and visible. What is today's version? Raising minimum wage to $15 or more? That's illusionary and the market will correct as it's always done. Single payer healthcare? Okay, that's something if that's what they really believe. Renewable energy for energy independence? Darn fracking has given us energy independence today and decades earlier than renewables would've. Lower student loan interest rates or free public college? Who pays for that and how does that stop runaway college costs, especially considering that the exploding availability of student loans at low interest rates is the single greatest factor in similar tuition increases in the first place? If those are the ideas, then that's why Progressivism isn't winning the hearts and minds at the ballot box.
It is easier to quantify what they are against:

1) Going back to 1920 in terms of gender/race/blah blah blah

That's it. And it is absurd, and most thinking people know it.

Progressivism is one big straw man


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
Skjellyfetti
Anal
Anal
Posts: 13655
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
I am a fan of: Appalachian

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by Skjellyfetti »

GannonFan wrote:Good parts at the end of that piece too...
It was exactly the same dream that powered the Hillary campaign: all the respected people are together, and that’s what matters. All the foreign policy gurus, all the Silicon Valley CEOs, all the Wall Street guys, all the highly regarded policy wonks. Rs and Ds alike, holding hands and singing from the same hymnal.

A popular front it ain’t. This is the same Washington dream of a great consensus of the well-graduated that has animated every stage of loser liberalism’s decline. What is stupid about it is that it unconsciously fulfills Donald Trump’s vision of a rigged establishment game. But what truly is awful about it is that it wants to crush the very real possibility that the Democratic party might become relevant again.
And to me, that's the problem with today's Progressivism - what does it even stand for? I know what Progressives wanted at the turn of the 20th century, their goals were concrete and visible. What is today's version? Raising minimum wage to $15 or more? That's illusionary and the market will correct as it's always done. Single payer healthcare? Okay, that's something if that's what they really believe. Renewable energy for energy independence? Darn fracking has given us energy independence today and decades earlier than renewables would've. Lower student loan interest rates or free public college? Who pays for that and how does that stop runaway college costs, especially considering that the exploding availability of student loans at low interest rates is the single greatest factor in similar tuition increases in the first place? If those are the ideas, then that's why Progressivism isn't winning the hearts and minds at the ballot box.
You voted for Jill Stein, dumbass.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 48438
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by kalm »

Chizzang wrote:
Ivytalk wrote:"Enron Democrats!" :lol: Hell, we need the Birkenstock Democrats!

Frank can turn a clever phrase, I'll give him that.

Bring on the worker strikes and the old Wobbly songs. Then Trumpism will be ousted, and true progressivism will prevail. Sounds like the lamentation of a disappointed Sanders supporter. Funny he doesn't talk about the public financing of elections.

One article I read says that, within 20 years, 100% of federal tax revenues will be used to support Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Obamacare entitlements. Zilch for the military, education, infrastructure, or anything else. In the meantime, long live the duopoly. :coffee:

Nero and Tom Frank fiddle while Rome burns.
What's sad is we could use that money to bomb Canada...

:nod:
This! :lol:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14958
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by GannonFan »

Skjellyfetti wrote:
GannonFan wrote:Good parts at the end of that piece too...



And to me, that's the problem with today's Progressivism - what does it even stand for? I know what Progressives wanted at the turn of the 20th century, their goals were concrete and visible. What is today's version? Raising minimum wage to $15 or more? That's illusionary and the market will correct as it's always done. Single payer healthcare? Okay, that's something if that's what they really believe. Renewable energy for energy independence? Darn fracking has given us energy independence today and decades earlier than renewables would've. Lower student loan interest rates or free public college? Who pays for that and how does that stop runaway college costs, especially considering that the exploding availability of student loans at low interest rates is the single greatest factor in similar tuition increases in the first place? If those are the ideas, then that's why Progressivism isn't winning the hearts and minds at the ballot box.
You voted for Jill Stein, dumbass.
I did, and you know what, it was everything I thought it could be. :lol:

As protest votes go, I'm perfectly comfortable with that. It beat leaving the vote blank for me. You'll have to live with the fact that you actually voted for Hillary because you actually agreed with her and you were fully behind everything she stood for. Dumbass indeed. :rofl:
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 48438
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by kalm »

CID1990 wrote:
GannonFan wrote:Good parts at the end of that piece too...



And to me, that's the problem with today's Progressivism - what does it even stand for? I know what Progressives wanted at the turn of the 20th century, their goals were concrete and visible. What is today's version? Raising minimum wage to $15 or more? That's illusionary and the market will correct as it's always done. Single payer healthcare? Okay, that's something if that's what they really believe. Renewable energy for energy independence? Darn fracking has given us energy independence today and decades earlier than renewables would've. Lower student loan interest rates or free public college? Who pays for that and how does that stop runaway college costs, especially considering that the exploding availability of student loans at low interest rates is the single greatest factor in similar tuition increases in the first place? If those are the ideas, then that's why Progressivism isn't winning the hearts and minds at the ballot box.
It is easier to quantify what they are against:

1) Going back to 1920 in terms of gender/race/blah blah blah

That's it. And it is absurd, and most thinking people know it.

Progressivism is one big straw man


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
So modern day progs are against black and low IQ folks having babies? I thought they benefitted from minority and low information voters...
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23950
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by CID1990 »

kalm wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
It is easier to quantify what they are against:

1) Going back to 1920 in terms of gender/race/blah blah blah

That's it. And it is absurd, and most thinking people know it.

Progressivism is one big straw man


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
So modern day progs are against black and low IQ folks having babies? I thought they benefitted from minority and low information voters...
I mention straw men and immediately klam pops up with Exhibit A

Nice work


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 48438
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by kalm »

CID1990 wrote:
kalm wrote:
So modern day progs are against black and low IQ folks having babies? I thought they benefitted from minority and low information voters...
I mention straw men and immediately klam pops up with Exhibit A

Nice work


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thanks!

Now please go on. Your post was a little cryptic.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 18890
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by JohnStOnge »

kalm wrote:Nancy Pelosi, Thom Friedman, and establishment Dems... :ohno:

After the protests die down and the blisters heal from all that marching, the center-left suburbanites will return to supporting moderate Republicans like Hillary and continue to lose... :nod:
They will not continue to lose. As I've written many times the demographic and cultural trends are their favor. When you really look at it, in spite of what happened in this particular election, the future looks a lot brighter for the Democratic Party in the United States than it does for the Republican Party.

In fact...and I don't necessarily like this...if they start worrying too much about trying to make white middle class voters who identify with the "Allentown" type of thing happy with them at the expense of playing to what makes them a virtual lock in the long run they will be making a mistake. That's not where the future is.

phpBB [video]
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
YoUDeeMan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12088
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:48 am
I am a fan of: Fleecing the Stupid
A.K.A.: Delaware Homie

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by YoUDeeMan »

kalm wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
I mention straw men and immediately klam pops up with Exhibit A

Nice work


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thanks!

Now please go on. Your post was a little too nuanced
FIFY
These signatures have a 500 character limit?

What if I have more personalities than that?
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 48438
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by kalm »

Cluck U wrote:
kalm wrote:
Thanks!

Now please go on. Your post was a little too nuanced
FIFY
Exactly! Read that siggy!
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 15403
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by SDHornet »

JohnStOnge wrote:
kalm wrote:Nancy Pelosi, Thom Friedman, and establishment Dems... :ohno:

After the protests die down and the blisters heal from all that marching, the center-left suburbanites will return to supporting moderate Republicans like Hillary and continue to lose... :nod:
They will not continue to lose. As I've written many times the demographic and cultural trends are their favor. When you really look at it, in spite of what happened in this particular election, the future looks a lot brighter for the Democratic Party in the United States than it does for the Republican Party.

In fact...and I don't necessarily like this...if they start worrying too much about trying to make white middle class voters who identify with the "Allentown" type of thing happy with them at the expense of playing to what makes them a virtual lock in the long run they will be making a mistake. That's not where the future is.

phpBB [video]
:dunce:

Trump pulled nearly 30% of Team Brown and nearly 10% of blacks...but more importantly Trump can make inroads in "union voting" households if he gets them back to work. It's the economy stupid. :dunce:

I will say the donks did themselves a favor by going with establishment Flores over leftist Ellison for DNC chair. Flores at least has a hope of keeping/winning back moderate voters while Ellison would have been a leftists leftist.
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23950
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by CID1990 »

Demographics don't support Democratic hegemony if a strong economy pulls more people into the middle class. Minority voters who broke for Trump fur into two categories: economic voters and voters who have gotten wise to the establishment Dem plantation.

Conversely, if Trump policies don't strengthen the economy is ways that benefit the middle class (and brings more minorities into it) then the Dems will get their shot again.

Once again, it's the economy, stupid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
YoUDeeMan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12088
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:48 am
I am a fan of: Fleecing the Stupid
A.K.A.: Delaware Homie

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by YoUDeeMan »

CID1990 wrote:
Once again, it's the economy, stupid.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...JSO is close to having increased heart palpitations again.
These signatures have a 500 character limit?

What if I have more personalities than that?
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14958
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by GannonFan »

SDHornet wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
They will not continue to lose. As I've written many times the demographic and cultural trends are their favor. When you really look at it, in spite of what happened in this particular election, the future looks a lot brighter for the Democratic Party in the United States than it does for the Republican Party.

In fact...and I don't necessarily like this...if they start worrying too much about trying to make white middle class voters who identify with the "Allentown" type of thing happy with them at the expense of playing to what makes them a virtual lock in the long run they will be making a mistake. That's not where the future is.

phpBB [video]
:dunce:

Trump pulled nearly 30% of Team Brown and nearly 10% of blacks...but more importantly Trump can make inroads in "union voting" households if he gets them back to work. It's the economy stupid. :dunce:

I will say the donks did themselves a favor by going with establishment Flores over leftist Ellison for DNC chair. Flores at least has a hope of keeping/winning back moderate voters while Ellison would have been a leftists leftist.
JSO's point is really only applicable to the Presidency, and even then, as in this election, the biggest voting tendency amounts to a popularity contest - who do the voters like more. Ideologies, policy, etc, don't matter as much as general personality and popularity. Where he's wrong is in every other elected office other than Presidency, which is where the GOP is really winning over the Dems right now and where there's no shift in demographics that's going to change that in the short term or a couple of decades out. Those offices are won more on local politics, maneuvering, controlling state legislatures, and other political machinations. That's where the GOP has been winning and will continue to win, if they keep the hold of the state legislatures through the next census, possibly into the 2020's. Democrats have focused almost entirely on the White House and that really only gets you so far, and when you run possibly the most corrupt candidate in the history of American politics in Hillary then you reap those rewards. Democrats are still in a great position to win future White Houses after Trump is gone (if Trump avoids major issues this term and wants to run again, he'll win with the incumbency), but they'll still need to make sure not to run someone like Hillary again to do it.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 25506
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Republic of Western Sussex

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by Ivytalk »

CID1990 wrote:Demographics don't support Democratic hegemony if a strong economy pulls more people into the middle class. Minority voters who broke for Trump fur into two categories: economic voters and voters who have gotten wise to the establishment Dem plantation.

Conversely, if Trump policies don't strengthen the economy is ways that benefit the middle class (and brings more minorities into it) then the Dems will get their shot again.

Once again, it's the economy, stupid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It's always about the economy, unless a shooting war is going on.
“Sure. I was wrong.” — 89Hen 7/27/2020
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 18890
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by JohnStOnge »

SDHornet wrote:
Trump pulled nearly 30% of Team Brown and nearly 10% of blacks...
I don't know why you keep referring to that: Again, look at the exit polling history below. There is absolutely no suggestion at all that Trump made inroads into the lack of support among non Whites for Republicans. His estimated 8% among Blacks is the lowest percentage estimated for any Republican of the period who wasn't running against a Black guy. His estimated 28% among Hispanics was below the median (30%) for the period.

I just don't get why you keep typing stuff indicating that you think he did well among Blacks and Hispanics. It just didn't happen.

Image
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 18890
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by JohnStOnge »

GannonFan wrote:
JSO's point is really only applicable to the Presidency,
I think the Presidency will go first because, unless something changes with respect to the demographics factor, Texas is inevitably going to flip to reliably Democrat in the relatively near future. But I also think other aspects of government will inevitably follow. Look at this past year's House elections, for example. In all the House races combined, the Republicans won the overall vote by 49.1% to 48.0%. But the exit polling voting estimates for White vs. non White voters were as follows:

White (71% of voters): Democrat 38%, Republican 60%
Non White (29% of voters): Democrat 74%, Republican 24%

The percentage of Non White voters will continue to increase. And at some point, unless the tendency of Non White voters to vote Democrat declines significantly, the dam will break. The future is not bright for the Republican Party.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 18890
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by JohnStOnge »

CID1990 wrote:Demographics don't support Democratic hegemony if a strong economy pulls more people into the middle class. Minority voters who broke for Trump fur into two categories: economic voters and voters who have gotten wise to the establishment Dem plantation.

Conversely, if Trump policies don't strengthen the economy is ways that benefit the middle class (and brings more minorities into it) then the Dems will get their shot again.

Once again, it's the economy, stupid.
The tendency for Non Whites to vote overwhelmingly Democrat has been constant throughout the period during which exit polling allows us to assess such things regardless of what the economy has been doing. I think the economy is one factor in any given election year. But it's not as important a factor...or at least so far it hasn't been as important a factor...as demographics is.

If only Non Whites had been voting since exit polling started in 1976, all of our Presidents would have been Democrats. If only Whites had been voting all that time, all of our Presidents would have been Republican. The fact that the population is evolving towards being less White is not good news for the Republicans.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 23950
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Loser Liberalism

Post by CID1990 »

JohnStOnge wrote:
CID1990 wrote:Demographics don't support Democratic hegemony if a strong economy pulls more people into the middle class. Minority voters who broke for Trump fur into two categories: economic voters and voters who have gotten wise to the establishment Dem plantation.

Conversely, if Trump policies don't strengthen the economy is ways that benefit the middle class (and brings more minorities into it) then the Dems will get their shot again.

Once again, it's the economy, stupid.
The tendency for Non Whites to vote overwhelmingly Democrat has been constant throughout the period during which exit polling allows us to assess such things regardless of what the economy has been doing. I think the economy is one factor in any given election year. But it's not as important a factor...or at least so far it hasn't been as important a factor...as demographics is.

If only Non Whites had been voting since exit polling started in 1976, all of our Presidents would have been Democrats. If only Whites had been voting all that time, all of our Presidents would have been Republican. The fact that the population is evolving towards being less White is not good news for the Republicans.
Logical fallacy. I'll let you figure out which one

(It's a doozy)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
Post Reply